Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Your example showed no such thing. I am a scientist, and I use statistics all of the time. What research do you do? What science do you do? What statistical tests do you use? Also, a bit of history:Lady tasting tea - Wikipedia

We are testing the method for predicting whether the next toss will be heads or tails. Please read what I wrote.

quote:

---

Cars can use diesel or electric motors.

---

What is your point? Animals can have fur or feathers or something else. I can also name differences. But what is the point?You are really good at totally missing the point. As expected for someone who has gone to believe in a faulty theory. As you usually need to be bad at logic to go this wrong.

My point is that separately created cars use different systems contrary to your claims. My point, as has been repeated several times now, is that there is no functional reason why separately created life would have to use the same tRNA's and codons. I have repeated the point multiple times now. Here it is again.My point, as has been repeated several times now, is that there is no functional reason why separately created life would have to use the same tRNA's and codons.My point, as has been repeated several times now, is that there is no functional reason why separately created life would have to use the same tRNA's and codons.My point, as has been repeated several times now, is that there is no functional reason why separately created life would have to use the same tRNA's and codons.Here is the other point.There is absolutely no reason why separately created kinds would need to fall into a nested hierarchy. Separately created cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy.There is absolutely no reason why separately created kinds would need to fall into a nested hierarchy. Separately created cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy.There is absolutely no reason why separately created kinds would need to fall into a nested hierarchy. Separately created cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

quote:

---

We are testing the method for predicting whether the next toss will be heads or tails. Please read what I wrote.

---

Wrong. You managed to miss the point again.We want to know how likely a theory is to be true. As you claim it to be beyond doubt.So in this case, it is about how likely the theory of 50% chance is true.Really, the fact that I need to spell out every single step for you, should not be surprising to me any more. But the huge lack of intelligence that you display here, while claiming to be working in science (and I don't doubt that), makes me feel sorry for the state of science in some areas.

quote:

---

My point, as has been repeated several times now, is that there is no functional reason why separately created life would have to use the same tRNA's and codons.

---

Sure, because we know every function of all parts of the DNA, and nothing of genetics hold any mystery for us anymore, right?Really, such arrogance often leads to error.

The chances of you correctly predicting 10 consecutive flips of the coin is 2^10, or 1 in 1024. Do the math.There are 10^38 possible trees for 30 species. Therefore, the chances of the independent morphological and molecular trees matching is 1 in 1x10^38. They match.

Yep, and no where do you see mammals with feathers. And no where do you see Ford cars with Chevy engines. An no automobiles fit into nested hierarchies. Your point is false and not supported by the evidence.

Like I said, your ignorance is what prevents you from understanding the evidence.We definitely know enough about tRNA's and protein translation to state that the relationship between the anti-codons in tRNA's and the amino acids attached to them are arbitrary.The enzymes that attach the amino acid the the 3' end of the tRNA molecule recognize the sequence on the D loop. Change the sequence on the D loop and you change the amino acid attached to the tRNA. The anticodon at the bottom of the molecule is what binds to mRNA through complementary base binding. You can swap and trade D loops and anticodons all you want without affecting any function. There is no physical law nor any biological function that requires a specific relationship between amino acid and anticodon. If you knew the basics of molecular biology you would already know this.

quote:

---

The chances of you correctly predicting 10 consecutive flips of the coin is 2^10, or 1 in 1024. Do the math.

---

So you fail to understand even a single question. I'm not gonna repeat myself. But serioulsy, you should quit your job, better not than tomorrow.

So says the person who doesn't know the basics of molecular biology, nor the probability of correctly predicting 10 consecutive flips of the coin. You can't do the basic math, and you don't understand even the basics of statistics. By the way, the chances of correctly predicting 10 consecutive flips of the coin is not 50-50. Just goes to show how bad your math skills are.

quote:

---

Like I said, your ignorance is what prevents you from understanding the evidence.

---

Says the one who changes subject all the time.Like when a noob claims if two things are the same color, they must be the same object. And one replies, you can have a red car and a red flower. Then you reply, but but but cars can also be blue. You miss the point like this all the time at every single step of the logic. You are extremely ignorant and clueless.

quote:

---

By the way, the chances of correctly predicting 10 consecutive flips of the coin is not 50-50.

---

I rest my case. You are hopeless.

It's a simple question.The chances of you correctly predicting 10 consecutive flips of the coin is 2^10, or 1 in 1024. If this is incorrect, show us you can do the math.

You are the one who introduced cars, coins, etc. We aren't claiming that similarities are evidence for evolution. We are saying that a NESTED HIERARCHY is evidence for evolution. Look who is changing the subject now?